Late Voting

All polling stations should stay open 1 hour later during General Elections – the current closing time dates from 2 generations ago when society closed earlier.

Allow optional extensions of no more than 1 hour if there are queues or other impediments to voting (like no ballot papers).

Always resource for 100% turnout. Penny pinching is stupid.

If an extension is required find away of identifying people who have turned up in time, but limit late voting to them. Perhaps "work the line" giving out tokens, or stamp the cards sent through the post.

Why is this idea important?

All polling stations should stay open 1 hour later during General Elections – the current closing time dates from 2 generations ago when society closed earlier.

Allow optional extensions of no more than 1 hour if there are queues or other impediments to voting (like no ballot papers).

Always resource for 100% turnout. Penny pinching is stupid.

If an extension is required find away of identifying people who have turned up in time, but limit late voting to them. Perhaps "work the line" giving out tokens, or stamp the cards sent through the post.

Freedom to opt out

The actual idea of voting implies a transfer of power to the politicians.

 

democracy or this collectivist sham transfers power to one set of CAREER politicians or another and the INDIVIDUAL is left powerless.

While we have freedom to choose certain vital courses of action, like where or how we work, whom we choose to marry etc, the most important liberty of all is the right to opt out – not to be forced to finance a certain policy, not to subscribe to a certain policy.

 

It is this right or liberty which the current party system takes away.  See my website www.camrecon.demon.co.uk .  Liberty is also threatened because party politicians are not free to protect our liberties, which, as Lord Hailsham says on my website was their traditional role, and as they are part of the Executive and looking for promotion do as they are told too often.

The party system comprises a "package" of policies which you accept or reject ENTIRELY. It is this which destroys individual liberty, which is not just about money it is about social choices which are forced upon ius by anti-discriminatory legislation.  some freedom

Unless we separate the Executive from the Commons once again pretence at freedom is just a whitewash. 

Why is this idea important?

The actual idea of voting implies a transfer of power to the politicians.

 

democracy or this collectivist sham transfers power to one set of CAREER politicians or another and the INDIVIDUAL is left powerless.

While we have freedom to choose certain vital courses of action, like where or how we work, whom we choose to marry etc, the most important liberty of all is the right to opt out – not to be forced to finance a certain policy, not to subscribe to a certain policy.

 

It is this right or liberty which the current party system takes away.  See my website www.camrecon.demon.co.uk .  Liberty is also threatened because party politicians are not free to protect our liberties, which, as Lord Hailsham says on my website was their traditional role, and as they are part of the Executive and looking for promotion do as they are told too often.

The party system comprises a "package" of policies which you accept or reject ENTIRELY. It is this which destroys individual liberty, which is not just about money it is about social choices which are forced upon ius by anti-discriminatory legislation.  some freedom

Unless we separate the Executive from the Commons once again pretence at freedom is just a whitewash. 

The Midlothian Question

Either give English MPs the right to vote on purely Scottish matters or remove the right of Scottish MPs to vote on purely English matters

This needs to be addressed at once

Why is this idea important?

Either give English MPs the right to vote on purely Scottish matters or remove the right of Scottish MPs to vote on purely English matters

This needs to be addressed at once

Vote for prime minister.

A general election should consist of two votes, the first as it stands at the present to elect a local representative to the house of commons and a second to vote for the prime minister who should be standing seperaty from the constituency seats.

Why is this idea important?

A general election should consist of two votes, the first as it stands at the present to elect a local representative to the house of commons and a second to vote for the prime minister who should be standing seperaty from the constituency seats.

Electoral canvass

I've no idea whether the Deputy Prime Minister is still looking at this site. Despite the promised frequent updates, nothing has been heard since 9 July. But just in case………

Each year an electoral canvass is required by law. Forms for completion are delivered to all households which are, or might be, residential. "No change" returns can be done online or by phone. To satisfy the law all others must bear a valid signature. This means processing (and presumably storing) many thousands, even millions, of forms. Reminders must be sent, canvassers must call. A colossal cost.

If the law were changed so that only an initial A5 page was delivered containing a code, then internet returns on a pro forma could supply many of the details, which should then self populate the new register. Spot checks would still be required but manual input would be much reduced.

A phone number would be required for those who preferred the form (and didn't want to download it) plus some canvassing input for "no shows". Substantive telephone returns could not be made due to the risk of error.

Why is this idea important?

I've no idea whether the Deputy Prime Minister is still looking at this site. Despite the promised frequent updates, nothing has been heard since 9 July. But just in case………

Each year an electoral canvass is required by law. Forms for completion are delivered to all households which are, or might be, residential. "No change" returns can be done online or by phone. To satisfy the law all others must bear a valid signature. This means processing (and presumably storing) many thousands, even millions, of forms. Reminders must be sent, canvassers must call. A colossal cost.

If the law were changed so that only an initial A5 page was delivered containing a code, then internet returns on a pro forma could supply many of the details, which should then self populate the new register. Spot checks would still be required but manual input would be much reduced.

A phone number would be required for those who preferred the form (and didn't want to download it) plus some canvassing input for "no shows". Substantive telephone returns could not be made due to the risk of error.

General election voting at polling station only

That the encouragement of voting otherwise than at a polling station should be removed.  In fact it should be impossible to vote other than at a polling station for anyone who is not medically incapable (and not just difficult) of getting to the station.  Being out of the country is just tough.

 

An election, especially if we have fixed terms, is known about well in advance and, if people care, they should make themselves available to vote in person on the day.

Why is this idea important?

That the encouragement of voting otherwise than at a polling station should be removed.  In fact it should be impossible to vote other than at a polling station for anyone who is not medically incapable (and not just difficult) of getting to the station.  Being out of the country is just tough.

 

An election, especially if we have fixed terms, is known about well in advance and, if people care, they should make themselves available to vote in person on the day.

Re voters roll

Why do we need a different group of people to collect the information for the voters roll?

Why can't  the information be collected with the council tax?

Why is this idea important?

Why do we need a different group of people to collect the information for the voters roll?

Why can't  the information be collected with the council tax?

Cancel the postal voting system and any plans to vote via the web

The ability to vote by past should be cancelled because it is wide open to abuse as would be "web based voting". The appointment of a proxy is perferable.

Why is this idea important?

The ability to vote by past should be cancelled because it is wide open to abuse as would be "web based voting". The appointment of a proxy is perferable.

Lower the voting age to 16

The governement exists to serve the population it governs, when we are born we have no say in how the government affects our lives but at a given age we are given the right to choose between which party of people we would like to govern us and if we are in the majority we get the party we wanted.

It is obvious why we don't give babies the vote: they can't have formed opinions on each party and their policies. For the same reasons we don't give 8 year olds the vote either but is it fair to say that at 16 people are unable to understand and asses various people and policies and then choose who they think is the best candidate? I believe at 16 people are intelligent enough to do this, let's not patronise our youth rather involve them and perhaps we will find that there won't be so many people who simply just vote as they think it makes no difference.

Why is this idea important?

The governement exists to serve the population it governs, when we are born we have no say in how the government affects our lives but at a given age we are given the right to choose between which party of people we would like to govern us and if we are in the majority we get the party we wanted.

It is obvious why we don't give babies the vote: they can't have formed opinions on each party and their policies. For the same reasons we don't give 8 year olds the vote either but is it fair to say that at 16 people are unable to understand and asses various people and policies and then choose who they think is the best candidate? I believe at 16 people are intelligent enough to do this, let's not patronise our youth rather involve them and perhaps we will find that there won't be so many people who simply just vote as they think it makes no difference.

E-voting for all

Why do we need so many politicians to vote on important decisions in the modern world?  200 years ago, 100 yeares ago, 50 years ago yes you could justify the 650 odd MPs but no longer.  Reduce this to say 101 MP's who can debate the arguments and then let the people decide.

I want to vote myself on the important decisions as my local MP (like yours) votes against my wishes time and again. MP's are happy to take your vote, promise you the earth and never deliver… enough is enough.

Why can the public not be allowed to vote via the internet instead of MPs? The system would be simple (proper security checks and vetting in place etc), and this would be real democracy in action.   It would also save Millions by reducing the number of MP's required.

Why is this idea important?

Why do we need so many politicians to vote on important decisions in the modern world?  200 years ago, 100 yeares ago, 50 years ago yes you could justify the 650 odd MPs but no longer.  Reduce this to say 101 MP's who can debate the arguments and then let the people decide.

I want to vote myself on the important decisions as my local MP (like yours) votes against my wishes time and again. MP's are happy to take your vote, promise you the earth and never deliver… enough is enough.

Why can the public not be allowed to vote via the internet instead of MPs? The system would be simple (proper security checks and vetting in place etc), and this would be real democracy in action.   It would also save Millions by reducing the number of MP's required.

Ex pat voting

Remove the restrictions on expat British citizens which stop them voting in British general elections after they have lived abroad for a certain number of years.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the restrictions on expat British citizens which stop them voting in British general elections after they have lived abroad for a certain number of years.

Allow electronic voting in trade union executive ballots

The idea

Allow all trade union members who wish the ability to vote for members of their executive bodies by means of an electronic vote. Currently all votes must be postal.

 

The blocking legislation

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionsintheworkplace/DG_179274

Balloting trade union members

When it comes to determining the method of selecting individuals to to fill the most senior positions in trade unions, the law requires a postal election to be held.

With few exceptions, there must be elections by ballot for the following senior positions in a trade union:

  • member of the executive
  • other positions where the person holding the position is automatically a member of the executive
  • president
  • general secretary

If you go to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidated) Act 1992 at:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920052_en_1

and scroll down to chapter 51 paragraph 4 you will read:

4)So far as is reasonably practicable, every person who is entitled to vote at the election must—

(a)have sent to him by post, at his home address or another address which he has requested the trade union in writing to treat as his postal address, a voting paper which either lists the candidates at the election or is accompanied by a separate list of those candidates; and

(b)be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post

Why is this idea important?

The idea

Allow all trade union members who wish the ability to vote for members of their executive bodies by means of an electronic vote. Currently all votes must be postal.

 

The blocking legislation

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionsintheworkplace/DG_179274

Balloting trade union members

When it comes to determining the method of selecting individuals to to fill the most senior positions in trade unions, the law requires a postal election to be held.

With few exceptions, there must be elections by ballot for the following senior positions in a trade union:

  • member of the executive
  • other positions where the person holding the position is automatically a member of the executive
  • president
  • general secretary

If you go to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidated) Act 1992 at:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920052_en_1

and scroll down to chapter 51 paragraph 4 you will read:

4)So far as is reasonably practicable, every person who is entitled to vote at the election must—

(a)have sent to him by post, at his home address or another address which he has requested the trade union in writing to treat as his postal address, a voting paper which either lists the candidates at the election or is accompanied by a separate list of those candidates; and

(b)be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post

Single Transferable Vote

I would propse that the FPTP system that we use at the moment for general elections should be replaced not by AV but STV. There are no doubt benefits to all sytems of voting but we are meant to be a democracy and ultimatly we need a sytem that accuratly reflects the opinion of the public.

How is it democratic that in 2005 Labour who had 35% of the vote ended up with 55% of the seats. If 35% voted for them then that meanss 65% didnt. Why should 35% of the electorate get represented so overwhelmingly. Using STV it would ensure that %of votes reflected better % of seats gained by the party.

UKIP had nearly 1 million votes in the 2010 election yet didnt get a single seat, Greens got 250,000 votes yet only 1 seat. If these many citizens are voting for these parties it is becuase they believe in their policies. If that is the case then thosee party policies should be heard in Parliament.

Using STV would also ensure that we have coillision governments because it is unlikley that one sinlee party will get over 50% of the vote. One party governments are bad becuase they are always run by either the few or leader at the top. That person or people can then pass legeslation that they want and might go against what the majority of people in the UK want. Coillision governments means that the two or more parties will have to meet half way and listen to others to reach legeslation that can benefit more people rather than just the 35% of the public.

In order for a government to have the majority of seats in Parliament they should have to have the majority of the votes, using STV would ensure that and would also tackle elitist and authoritarian governments.

Why is this idea important?

I would propse that the FPTP system that we use at the moment for general elections should be replaced not by AV but STV. There are no doubt benefits to all sytems of voting but we are meant to be a democracy and ultimatly we need a sytem that accuratly reflects the opinion of the public.

How is it democratic that in 2005 Labour who had 35% of the vote ended up with 55% of the seats. If 35% voted for them then that meanss 65% didnt. Why should 35% of the electorate get represented so overwhelmingly. Using STV it would ensure that %of votes reflected better % of seats gained by the party.

UKIP had nearly 1 million votes in the 2010 election yet didnt get a single seat, Greens got 250,000 votes yet only 1 seat. If these many citizens are voting for these parties it is becuase they believe in their policies. If that is the case then thosee party policies should be heard in Parliament.

Using STV would also ensure that we have coillision governments because it is unlikley that one sinlee party will get over 50% of the vote. One party governments are bad becuase they are always run by either the few or leader at the top. That person or people can then pass legeslation that they want and might go against what the majority of people in the UK want. Coillision governments means that the two or more parties will have to meet half way and listen to others to reach legeslation that can benefit more people rather than just the 35% of the public.

In order for a government to have the majority of seats in Parliament they should have to have the majority of the votes, using STV would ensure that and would also tackle elitist and authoritarian governments.

Expatriate Taxpayers’ Voting Rights

Under current arrangements expatriate UK citizens lose their voting right after 15 years.

This disenfranchisement should not apply to those who continue to pay UK taxes on all or part of their income, no matter where they live, or for how long they have been abroad.

The fundamental principle is: "No taxation without representation". This implies that UK taxpayers should always have the right to participate in UK General Elections and contribute to choosing the government(s) that will decide how much tax they will pay.

Expariate pensioners are particularly disadvantaged by the '15 year' bar becasue their incomes are often quite low, so any changes in tax-rates has disproportionate effects.

The disenfranchisement effected by the 15 year ban is contrary to natural justice basic democratic human rights and social fairness.

The Electoral Law should be amended to repeal this provision.

Why is this idea important?

Under current arrangements expatriate UK citizens lose their voting right after 15 years.

This disenfranchisement should not apply to those who continue to pay UK taxes on all or part of their income, no matter where they live, or for how long they have been abroad.

The fundamental principle is: "No taxation without representation". This implies that UK taxpayers should always have the right to participate in UK General Elections and contribute to choosing the government(s) that will decide how much tax they will pay.

Expariate pensioners are particularly disadvantaged by the '15 year' bar becasue their incomes are often quite low, so any changes in tax-rates has disproportionate effects.

The disenfranchisement effected by the 15 year ban is contrary to natural justice basic democratic human rights and social fairness.

The Electoral Law should be amended to repeal this provision.

repeal the right to vote in UK elections for non UK citizens

Curretly, commenwealth citizens can vote in UK elections, despite not being british citizens.

Here in Singapore,many citizens actually voted in the last UK election, whilst I am unable to vote in the upcoming Singapore election.

I pay tax,live here and get no vote.

Yet commenwealth citizens can be in the same position in the UK ,and vote.

A vote should be for citizens of that country,and not visitors,permanant residents or foreign students-all of whom can currently vote in a UK election if resident here.

Why is this idea important?

Curretly, commenwealth citizens can vote in UK elections, despite not being british citizens.

Here in Singapore,many citizens actually voted in the last UK election, whilst I am unable to vote in the upcoming Singapore election.

I pay tax,live here and get no vote.

Yet commenwealth citizens can be in the same position in the UK ,and vote.

A vote should be for citizens of that country,and not visitors,permanant residents or foreign students-all of whom can currently vote in a UK election if resident here.

Voting from overseas.

It is impossible to vote from overseas under the present restrictions that only allow voting papers to be sent out 10 days before the election date.

Living in Australia it takes 4/5 days to get here and the same to return!

I don`t want to appoint a proxy – why should I – so please consider a change which surely is not difficult, if there is a will.

I propose that voting papers be sent out, for those overseas, a month before the election date.

An alternative is to allow time for the return of the votes and not declare results for say 2 weeks after the election!

We should not be dis-enfranchised.

Astley22.

Why is this idea important?

It is impossible to vote from overseas under the present restrictions that only allow voting papers to be sent out 10 days before the election date.

Living in Australia it takes 4/5 days to get here and the same to return!

I don`t want to appoint a proxy – why should I – so please consider a change which surely is not difficult, if there is a will.

I propose that voting papers be sent out, for those overseas, a month before the election date.

An alternative is to allow time for the return of the votes and not declare results for say 2 weeks after the election!

We should not be dis-enfranchised.

Astley22.

change the way we vote

To undo the whole registering to vote process, and in doing so, enhance democracy and save several million pounds.

To replace it with a system that uses a combination of passports and driving licenses, and an online database on polling day (admittedly, one that wouldn't crash… ahem hmg's web server!)

every passport / driving license has a unique number. Admittedly, not every person has a driving license or a passport… passport ownership stands at about 70% at the moment….

he solution is that I think it is a human right that at birth in this country everyone is given a passport. It should be the inalieable and free right of any honest individual to travel out of the country if they wish to do so. So, if you are scrapping ID cards, how about giving passports to the 30% rest of the population… and then… you won't have to do that ridiculous register to vote paperwork come the next election.

 

and I estimate it would increase voter turnout by 10 – 20 %

 

The other option is the inky finger option (or hand dying stamp?), which isn't actually too bad… ok, so you'd have a 1 – 3% error rating for cheeky tourists / non-nationals who try and vote…. but a turnout more like 90%….

 

and for a further point, STV (single transferable vote) is much more representational of voters than AV (alternative vote) or FPTP (first past the post, our current system, modelled on horse racing…)

Why is this idea important?

To undo the whole registering to vote process, and in doing so, enhance democracy and save several million pounds.

To replace it with a system that uses a combination of passports and driving licenses, and an online database on polling day (admittedly, one that wouldn't crash… ahem hmg's web server!)

every passport / driving license has a unique number. Admittedly, not every person has a driving license or a passport… passport ownership stands at about 70% at the moment….

he solution is that I think it is a human right that at birth in this country everyone is given a passport. It should be the inalieable and free right of any honest individual to travel out of the country if they wish to do so. So, if you are scrapping ID cards, how about giving passports to the 30% rest of the population… and then… you won't have to do that ridiculous register to vote paperwork come the next election.

 

and I estimate it would increase voter turnout by 10 – 20 %

 

The other option is the inky finger option (or hand dying stamp?), which isn't actually too bad… ok, so you'd have a 1 – 3% error rating for cheeky tourists / non-nationals who try and vote…. but a turnout more like 90%….

 

and for a further point, STV (single transferable vote) is much more representational of voters than AV (alternative vote) or FPTP (first past the post, our current system, modelled on horse racing…)

Introduce the Withdrawable/Retractable Vote

Forget 5 yr terms. Allow me to have a withdrawable/retractable vote.

 

if i vote for a party, and say…for example they make some deal with a party i despise. i should be able to withdraw or retract my vote.

 

if they take us to war, i should be able to withdraw or retract my vote.

 

If they destroy my liberties i should be able to withdraw or retract my vote.

 

Once enough votes have been retracted that the party no longer has a majority, then a new election is called.

 

If parties knew that your vote was not permanent then they would actually serve the people first and foremost.

 

Why is this idea important?

Forget 5 yr terms. Allow me to have a withdrawable/retractable vote.

 

if i vote for a party, and say…for example they make some deal with a party i despise. i should be able to withdraw or retract my vote.

 

if they take us to war, i should be able to withdraw or retract my vote.

 

If they destroy my liberties i should be able to withdraw or retract my vote.

 

Once enough votes have been retracted that the party no longer has a majority, then a new election is called.

 

If parties knew that your vote was not permanent then they would actually serve the people first and foremost.

 

voting for overseas residents

All British citizens should have the right to vote in general elections. Currently this right is withdrawn if you have been living overseas for more 15 years. This regulation even affects people who are still UK tax payers and British children born overseas. Mr Clegg was asked about this situation on a recent visit to Spain and fumbled some silly excuse about citizenship "slipping away". How can rights slip away? Before there is any change to the voting system, it is necessary to ensure that the basic right to vote is restored to all citizens.

Why is this idea important?

All British citizens should have the right to vote in general elections. Currently this right is withdrawn if you have been living overseas for more 15 years. This regulation even affects people who are still UK tax payers and British children born overseas. Mr Clegg was asked about this situation on a recent visit to Spain and fumbled some silly excuse about citizenship "slipping away". How can rights slip away? Before there is any change to the voting system, it is necessary to ensure that the basic right to vote is restored to all citizens.

AV Voting should allot points relating to order of preference

Points should be allotted according to people's preference when voting. If there are 5 candidates in the constituency, the candidate that is a person's first choice would be allotted 5 points, the second choice 4 points, the third choice 3 points etc.  This would obviously have to be adjusted depending on the number of candidates in a constituency, and there may need to be a larger difference between the number of points given for each position in the list. The candidate gaining the most points would win.

Why is this idea important?

Points should be allotted according to people's preference when voting. If there are 5 candidates in the constituency, the candidate that is a person's first choice would be allotted 5 points, the second choice 4 points, the third choice 3 points etc.  This would obviously have to be adjusted depending on the number of candidates in a constituency, and there may need to be a larger difference between the number of points given for each position in the list. The candidate gaining the most points would win.

Voting

Governments complain about low turnouts, why?

We always vote on a thursday when most people are at work.

Why can you not change the law so that all general election votes are done on a sat and sun.

 

Why is this idea important?

Governments complain about low turnouts, why?

We always vote on a thursday when most people are at work.

Why can you not change the law so that all general election votes are done on a sat and sun.

 

Proportional voting for elections

We need to change our Voting systems for the UK General Election, Local Elections and also vote for the House of Lords. This is our country, our politics and our vote. The citizens need to be represented fairly and equally. We need to avoid systems that enables tactical voting as the smaller parties are not recognised in the results.

Why is this idea important?

We need to change our Voting systems for the UK General Election, Local Elections and also vote for the House of Lords. This is our country, our politics and our vote. The citizens need to be represented fairly and equally. We need to avoid systems that enables tactical voting as the smaller parties are not recognised in the results.

Voting age lowered to 16.

At the age of sixteen one can get a full time job and are entitled to recieve the minimum wage or higher. At the age of sixteen one has to pay national insurance and income tax on any money earnt. At the age of sixteen one CANNOT vote. This is ridiculous, if someone put money into the economy by taxes they sould have the oppurtunity to vote for what they believe in and who they think will do the best job in running the country. David Millaband, the most likely next Labour leader said he would propose to bring the voting age down to 16 and that is why as soon as i turn 15 this November I am becoming a member of the Labour party. People say that young people will not make the right descisions and they will not think about what they want. That is wrong, the next five years will have abig impact on my life and I want every possible opportunity i can get from who i want to run the country. You only have to look to The Netherlands to see that lowering an age limit has a positive impact. In The Netherlands, the age of consent is 12, yet it still has one of the lowest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe. This is because they are taught about the effects of sex early and they know what is right and what is wrong.

Why is this idea important?

At the age of sixteen one can get a full time job and are entitled to recieve the minimum wage or higher. At the age of sixteen one has to pay national insurance and income tax on any money earnt. At the age of sixteen one CANNOT vote. This is ridiculous, if someone put money into the economy by taxes they sould have the oppurtunity to vote for what they believe in and who they think will do the best job in running the country. David Millaband, the most likely next Labour leader said he would propose to bring the voting age down to 16 and that is why as soon as i turn 15 this November I am becoming a member of the Labour party. People say that young people will not make the right descisions and they will not think about what they want. That is wrong, the next five years will have abig impact on my life and I want every possible opportunity i can get from who i want to run the country. You only have to look to The Netherlands to see that lowering an age limit has a positive impact. In The Netherlands, the age of consent is 12, yet it still has one of the lowest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe. This is because they are taught about the effects of sex early and they know what is right and what is wrong.